Phonological Processes in Child Language Acquisition

Some common phonological observations in bilingual child language acquisition
I will be revisiting these frequently

Subject: loquacious 3 year old female

- Metathesis
"spaghetti" becomes "pasghetti"
"elegant fowl" becomes "elefant gowl"
"Joseph" becomes "Jophes"

- Assimilation (Palatalization)
"very" becomes "dery"

- Non-rhotization

With regard to second language (Tagalog)
the following words contain aspirated stops. Aspiration is a feature of English

"malaki" becomes "malakhi"
"tubig" becomes "t(h)ubig"
"balikat" becomes "balikhat"

Tagalog Segment Inventory

With thanks to the Speech Accent Archive

Introducing the Tagalog Segment Inventory!

These are all the sounds in the native Tagalog language. Some of us Filipinos may remember the old Alphabet we used to sing in school that went, "A ba ka da, e, ga, ha, i, la, ma, na, o, pa, ra, sa, ta, u, wa, ya!" Well this is it folks! In IPA standard format.

New sounds like c, z, (enye), are all loan sounds from English and Spanish.

Nasal Place Assimilations in Tagalog

Take a look at Tagalog numbers 11 through 19... Notice how the prefix "labing" literally meaning "surplus" slightly changes in form in each of these examples...

(11)-> labing-isa
(12)-> lanbindalawa
(13)-> labintatlo
(14)-> labing-apat
(15)-> labinlima
(16)-> labing-anim
(17)-> labimpito
(18)-> labingwalo
(19)-> labinsiyam

When does "labing" end in "ng?" (before vowels and "w")

When does it end in "n?" (before "d," "t," "l," "s,)

In "m?" (before "p")

Could all of these be but variations of one underlying form of "labing?"

What determines these variations?

The answer to these questions lies in the following chart.

Tagalog Phonetic Inventory
We see from the chart above that the nasal
[m] is produced by the lips (bilabial),
[n] is produced by the teeth (dental) and
"ng" (written as [ŋ] on the chart) is pronounced far back in the velum of the mouth (velar).

"Bilabial, Dental and Velar" are all "places of articulation." Basically, where the sound is produced.

Now, The universal phonological rule is that certain sounds called "nasals" like "m", "n" and "ng" / [ŋ] (nasals because you kinda use your nose to make these sounds) must agree in place of articulation with the consonant (C) that follows them.

Technically:
/n/-> αgrees in place (of articulation)/ ___ C

So, for instance, in the Tagalog word for 12: "labin-dalawa,"
the nasal [ŋ] becomes the nasal [n] (a dental) to agree with the following consonant, [d] (a dental) in "dalawa."

The true underlying form of the prefix is "labing." And "labing" just changes form according to what letter comes next. Cute no?

The occurence of the silent H in Tagalog

"This is an hantik"

HANTIK - pronounced to my knowledge by Filipinos as [AN-TIK]

is most likely a Spanish influence on Philippine phonology since the island of Antique named after the red ant, hantik was originally spelled Hantique. It is the only occurrence of a silent H in Tagalog that I know of. If anyone knows of any other please feel free to post it here.

What is Taglish? (Abstract)

(Many thanks for Dr. Bautista and Dr. Almario for their valuable insights mentioned in this paper and Adarna's attic for this scrumptious picture)



In the Philippines, there is a popular dessert made of shaved ice and milk to which are added various boiled sweet beans and tropical fruits. It is served cold in a tall glass or bowl topped with ice cream. This “mix-mix” or “halo-halo,” as the dessert is called, was first used in reference to the linguistic blend of Tagalog and English called Taglish in 1967 (Bautista, 1991).

It is the purpose of this paper to explore what Taglish is, as a step towards determining whether it can be used in a Heritage Language learning setting. Is Taglish a language distinct from English or Tagalog? Is it a pidgin or creole? Or is it an occurrence of code-switching?

We must first define what language is. Brown (2002) says, “Language is an arbitrary system of vocal (or visual) symbols used by the members of a speech community for the purpose of communication.”

According to Crystal (1987), to distinguish a language from a dialect one would need to determine the degree of unintelligibility between these languages. This paper briefly investigates whether Taglish is lexically, grammatically (morphologically and syntactically) and phonologically distinct from English or Tagalog.

Language determination is also made on the basis of mutual intelligibility, cultural/mass opinion as well as its political status (Vajda, 2001).

Hopefully, this mainly linguistic and partly sociological approach will help illuminate the nature of Taglish.

For paper request email: nschaude@gmu.edu

Wikang Taglish, Kamulatang Taglish (The Taglish Language, The Taglish Mindset) by Virgilio Almario

Sa dinami-dami ng mga nasulat ko hinggil sa wika mula noong dekada 60, maaaring nakapaglathala na ako ng pagkatig sa mga guro na isang sagabal sa wastong pagtuturo ng wika (Filipino man o Ingles) ang tinatawag na Taglish. (May nagsabi sa akin na si Tony Velasquez ng Kenkoy ang umimbento ng “Taglish” at “Engalog.” Taglish daw kapag nananaig ang Tagalog at Engalog kapag higit na pinaiiral ang Ingles.) Dahil sa gayong haka, maaaring nasabi ko rin na masamâ ang Taglish.

Of all the things that I have written on language since the 60’s, I may have possibly written a guideline for teachers discouraging the use of what we call Taglish and Engalog in teaching either the Tagalog or English language. (Someone told me that Tony Velasquez of the popular Kenkoy comics was the inventor of Taglish and Engalog. It is called Taglish, according to some, if Tagalog is dominant and Engalog if English is more so). That being said, I may have also previously mentioned that the use of Taglish is bad.

Marami pa rin akong alinlangan sa Taglish.

I still have a lot of misgivings about Taglish.

Gayunman, hindi ko sasawatain ang pagpasok ng Taglish sa kumbersasyon at kahit na sa mga dagliang sulat. Masyadong purista ang mga gurong nais magbawal sa Taglish sa kanilang klase. Hindi nila iniisip ang realidad, lalo na sa kasalukuyang problema ng mga mag-aaral. Hindi nila matanggap ang katotohanan na malakíng bahagi ng karanasang pang-araw-araw ng mag-aaral ngayon ang paggamit ng Ingles kahit sa pagbása lámang ng mga bilbord at karatula sa lansangan, pagbása ng de-látang pagkain at inúmin, panonood ng TV (lalo’t cable TV), pakikinig ng radyo. Dahil dito, marami sa kanilang iniisip ang nása Ingles. U-Turn, PedXing, Exit, Open, Tsanel, Mall, Text, Klerk, Kard. O kaaway bílang pangunahin ng mga bagay na naranasan din nila sa Filipino, “Noodles” o “pansit”? “Titser” o “guro”? “Dog” o “aso”? “Car” o “kotse”?

Be that as it may, I would not entirely condemn the entry of Taglish into conversation and even in casual writing. Those teachers who ban Taglish in their classes are certainly purists. They do not think of the reality, more so the current problems of students. They do not accept the truth about a large part of a student’s daily experience today making use of English, whether in reading a billboard, street signs, canned food and drink, watching TV (especially cable TV) or listening to the radio. Because of this much of their thinking occurs in English. U-Turn 'Fed-X-ing', 'Exit', 'Open', 'Channel', 'Mall', 'Text', 'Clerk', 'Card.' There are also competing concepts experienced by the Filipino such as whether to use, “Noodles” or “Pansit?” “Teacher” or “guro?” “Dog” or “aso?” “Car” or “Kotse.”

Hinahangaan ko sa bagay na ito ang mga lingguwistasero, lalo na sa UP, na nakipaglaban para kilalanin ang gawaing ito bílang bahagi lámang ng katotohanan sa ating panahon. Dapat nating tanggapin ang katotohanan na hindi naman totoong lumaya ang Filipinas sa Estados Unidos noong ideklara ang pambansang kasarinlan sa Luneta. Umalis lámang ang mga pinunòng Amerikano sa ating bansa ngunit nananatili ang impluwensiyang Amerikano sa lahat ng aspekto ng ating búhay. Ang tingin ko nga, hábang tumatagal, higit táyong nararahuyo sa bighani ng kulturang Amerikano, at siyempre pa, ng Ingles bílang wika ng globalisasyon. Sinusuot na ng Ingles kahit ang dila ng kanto boy (tingnan pa ang naghalong Espanyol at Ingles sa “kanto boy”!) kayâ’t kung noong bago magkadigma ay wala pang sandaang salita mula Ingles ang palasak, daan-daan ngayon ang lumalaganap taon-taon.

When it comes to these things I admire the linguists, most especially in UP (University of the Philippines), who struggle to have these concepts recognized as part of the reality of this day and age. We need to accept that it isn’t true that the Philippines was freed from the United States when they declared our sovereignty in Luneta. The American officials merely left our country but the American influence remained in all aspects of our life. I think that as time goes by, we are more and more enamored of American culture, and of course, English as a language of globalization. Even the “canto boy” will take on the English tongue (note: the mixture of Spanish and English is this unique Filipino term, “canto boy!” And so even if before the war there weren’t but a hundred words of English in our language as it is now, hundreds and hundreds pour in each year.

Ang pagtanggap sa katotohanang ito ay hindi isang pagsusuko sa pangunahing papel ng Filipino sa paaralan. Pagyukod ito sa praktikalidad. Bukod pa, pagtanggap ito sa simulain ng panghihiram bílang isang magaan at magandang paraan ng pagpapayaman sa ating katutubong wika. Dapat nating isipin na napakaraming makabagong bagay at konsepto ang sadyang nagmumula ngayon sa Kanluran at mabilis nating naipapasok sa ating búhay ang naturang makabagong bagay at konsepto sa pamamagitan ng paghiram sa mga pangalang nito sa Ingles. Ano ba ang ipapalit natin sa computer, internet, o kahit bolpen? Maganda ang “bantayog” o “balikbayan” ngunit gaano kayâ kabilis makalilikha ng ganito ang ating mga manunulat at tagasalin upang maagapan ang dumadagsang banyaga at modernong teknolohiya.

Now to accept this truth, is not to surrender the primacy of Filipino in our schools. This is a bow to practicality. Moreover, it is an acceptance of the origins of borrowing as a light and beautiful way of enriching one’s native language. We need to think that there are many new things and concepts innately from the West and that we quickly incorporate into our language through the process of borrowing their names in English. What words can properly replace “computer,” “Internet” or even “ballpen?” The words, “bantayog” or “balikbayan” are beautiful, but how fast can writers and translators create such words before the overflow foreign and modern technology.

Nagaganap ngayon sa pamamagitan ng Ingles ang pagpasok noon ng libo-libong salita at idyomang Espanyol sa loob ng tatlong dantaon ng pananakop.

The previous influx of thousands of Spanish words within three centuries of domination is now recapitulated in English.

Sa kabila nito, naniniwala pa rin akong dapat disiplinahin ang Taglish sa loob ng klase. Kung bagá, dapat gamitan ng preno. Ipaliwanag sa mag-aaral ang kabuluhan ng panghihiram upang yumaman ang kanilang wika’t isipan. Upang kaugnay nito’y linawin din sa kanila ang masamâng bisà ng walang-pakundangang paggamit ng salitâ’t praseng Ingles. Iba ang malikhain at pihikang panghihiram kaysa pikitmatang panggagaya. Yumayaman ang Filipino kung idagdag ang “titser” bílang singkahulugan ng “guro” at “maestra/maestro.” Subalit nalulugi ang Filipino kung igigiit na “titser” lámang ang gamítin ng lahat, dahil ito ang popular, at kahit hinggil sa paaralan noong panahon ni Rizal, upang balang araw ay malimot na ng madla ang “guro” at “maestra/maestro.” Marahil din, tatanggapin ng mga probinsiyano sa daratíng na mga araw ang ekspresyong “actually” sa bukana ng bawat pangungusap. Ngunit kawawa naman sila kung pipiliting magsalita ng “Actually, bright naman siya. Wala lang chance mag-show ng talent niya.”

Nevethereless, I still believe in the disciplined use of Taglish within the classroom. In other words, there must be some boundaries. Explain to students the importance of borrowing in order to enrich language and thought. In relation to this, also explain the detriment of overusage of English phrases. Creative and selective use of borrowings is different from blind license. Filipinos are enriched when “teacher” is added as an additional word to “guro” and “maestro/maestro.” But we are impoverished if we insist on only using the word, “teacher,” so much so that we forget “guro” and “maestro/maestro.” It is also possible that people from the provinces will soon be using “Actually,” in between sentences. But it would be a pity if the force themselves to say, “Actually, bright naman siya. Wala lang chance mag-show ng talent niya.” (emphasize English noun insertions within an Tagalog sentence matrix).

Mahalaga ang gampanin ng guro sa sinasabi kong pagdisiplina. Siya mismo ang kailangang maging modelo sa paggamit ng kanais-nais na Filipino sa loob ng klase, at siya rin ang makapagluluwag o makapaghihigpit sa uri ng Taglish na ipahihintulot sa loob ng klase. Kapag labis siyang naghigpit, lilitaw siyang purista. Kapag labis siyang nagluwag, magiging kasangkapan siya sa higit pang pangingibabaw ng Taglish sa hanay ng mga kabataan. Paano magluluwag at paano maghihigpit? Dapat itong paglaanan ng masusuing diskusyon ng mga guro’t eksperto sa Filipino.

The teacher’s role is important in the discipline I mention. The teacher him/herself must be the model of proper Filipino usage within the classroom, and s/he must also be the one to loosen or draw in the reigns for the type of Taglish that is allowed within the class. If too firm, s/he will be purist and if too loose then s/he becomes an instrument of Taglish becoming dominant among the youth. How to be firm and flexible? This must undergo rigorous discussion among teachers and experts in Filipino.

Ang higit ngayong bukal ng aking alinlangan ay ang kamulatang nagsusulong sa Taglish.

The more important part of my fear is mindset that drives Taglish.

Nasabi ko na rin yata noon na sintomas ng katamaran ang Taglish, ng kawalan ng sikap túngo sa higit na masinop na wika ng pahayag. Na sintomas ito ng kawalan ng malasákit upang patúloy na buháyin sa ating dila ang batayang bokabularyo ng ating nililinang na wikang pambansa. Na sintomas din ito ng kawalan ng lingap sa kasaysayan. At magkakaugnay ang mga naturang sintomas.

I may have also mentioned in the past that Taglish is a symptom of laziness, of lack of diligence towards a clearer language of expression. That it is a symptom of lackadaisical attitude to revive our mother tongue and lexicon. That it is a symptom of lack of historical reflexivity. And all these symptoms are related.

Nais ko pang idagdag ngayon ang sospetsa hinggil sa uri ng karunungang ipinapanukala at pinalalaganap ng kamulatang nagsusulong sa Taglish. Una, isang kamulatan ito na sa isang bandá’y may mahinàng pagkaunawa bukod sa totoong may mababàng pagtingin sa karunungang taglay ng wikang Filipino. Kayâ alinsunod sa kamulatang Taglish, hindi lámang minomodernisa ng Ingles ang Filipino. Isinasanib din ng Ingles sa Filipino ang karunungang hindi kailanman maaabot ng Filipino kung wala ang Ingles. Sa gayon, at ikalawa, naniniwala ang kamulatang Taglish na Ingles lámang ang tangi at katangi-tanging wika ng karunungan. Ikatlo, wala itong tiwala sa karunungang nakapahayag sa Filipino.

I also wish to add now what I suspect about the kind of learning proposed and disseminated by those that wish to propagate Taglish mindset. First, such a mindset, has on one hand has little understanding not to say, low regard for the learning the Filipino language has to offer. According to this mindset, not only does English modernize Filipino, English also (brings about?) a certain to Filipino that supposed knowledge which it can never attain without English’s help. Therefore, and secondly, those with Taglish mindset’s believe that English is the only language for learning. Thirdly, this mindset has no confidence in learning in Filipino.

Ang kamulatang Taglish ay isa lámang manipestasyon ng kaisipang kolonyal sa hanay ng mga edukado’t mariwasa sa ating lipunan. Ginagamit nitong balatkayo ang Taglish upang patúloy na maliitin ang pagsisikap na linángin at palaganapin ang isang wikang pambansa batay sa katutubong wika. Mistulang bentot ang Taglish upang ipahiwatig ang kabuluhan ng Ingles sa modernisasyon, upang silawin at bighaniin ang nakararaming mangmang at maralita sa alindog ng Ingles bílang palamuti sa kanilang sariling wika. Upang palitawin itong “mas magaang na pampalit” sa lagi nitong idinadaing na “mahirap bigkasin” dahil “mahahabà at nakabubulol” at kayâ “mahirap unawain” na mga katutubong salita sa Filipino. Na para bang ang bokabularyo ng mataas na karunungan sa Ingles ay lagi ngang monosilabiko. Na para bang napakadali ngang basahin at bigkasin ang kahit ordinaryong salita sa Ingles. Ngunit sa bisà ng tinig nitong awtoritatibo dahil tinitingalang mayaman at nakapag-aral, nagiging lehitimo ang lahat ng mga naturang argumento ng kamulatang Taglish, inuulit-ulit ng mga peryodistang Inglesero, at pinaniniwalaan hábang lumalaon ng kahit mga dukha—lalo’t kailangan nilang maniwala na higit nilang kailangan ang Ingles upang mabúhay.

The Taglish midset is merely one manifestation of colonial mentality among the ranks of the educated (elite ?)in our society. Under the guise of Taglish they continue to diminutize the efforts to sow and cultivate a national language based on a native one. Taglish is but a (misguided farce?) in order to reveal the reason for English in modernization, in order to blind and dazzle the untutored and disadvantaged masses with the beauty of English as a cover-up for their own language. In order to make it appear that this is “lighter alternative” it often invokes “difficult pronunciation” because of the “long and tongue-twisting” Filipino words native words that are “hard to understand.” As if the vocabulary of higher education in English were all monosyllabic. As if it were so easy to speak and read even the ordinary sentences in English. Yet by the power of this authoritarian voice often seen as richer and educated, all arguments of the Taglish mindset are legitimized, repeated by English speaking journalist, and believed until present even by the poor, more so who want to believe that they need English in order to merely survive.

Malaki din ang sospetsa ko na totoo na ngayong naniniwala ang kamulatang Taglsih sa pinalaganap nitong argumento laban sa Filipino. Ang ibig sabihin, hindi ito mangingiming impagmalakí ang “madali nitong pagkatuto ng Ingles” upang maging halimbawa ng 99% ng sambayanang Filipino na itinuturing lámang nitong bobo o mahina ang titser kayâ hindi makapagsalita ng mahusay na Ingles. Lagi nitong ipaghihimagsik ang pagdurusang pinagdaanan upang maunawaan ang halimbawa’y “kapansanan” na kung bakit iginigiit diumano bílang salin ng disability gayong sa paniwala nito’y sapat na ang alam nitong “depekto.” Hindi nito alam na orihinal at hindi salin ng disability ang “kapansanan.” Hindi rin nito alam na iba ang disability sa defect. At maririmarim lalo ito kapag narinig na “pinsala” ang higit na katumbas ng defect. Ayaw nitong maging eksakto ang Filipino ngunit pinagtatawanan nito ang diumano’y kawalan ng precise at teknikal na bokabularyo ng wikang pambansa.

I also suspect that now, those of Taglish mindset believe in propagating arguments against the use of Filipino. I mean to say, they will not keep silent and merely brag about the “facility at which Filipinos learn English” so that they may become examples to the 99% of Filipinos whom they consider idiots or suffering from bad instructors who couldn’t teach them to speak proper English. They will always be protesting the hardship in understanding say for instance, a word such as “kapansanan” that can so readily be translated for them into “disability” on the assumption that the concept of “defect” is sufficient. They do not know that that “kapansanan” is unique and is not translatable into “disability.” Neither do they know that “disability” is entirely different from “defect.” And they would be aghast indeed when they hear that “pinsala” is the equivalent for “defect.” These very same, do not want to be exacting in Filipino yet they laugh at the supposed lack of precise or technical vocabulary in the national language.

Ang higit kong ikinababalisa sa kamulatang Taglish ay ang kawalan nito ng kakayahang tumuklas ng sarili’t awtentikong karunungan. Sapagkat lagi itong umaasa sa karunungang dulot ng wikang Ingles, nagiging dalubhasa itong tagapagpaliwanag at interpreter, at nasisiyahan na sa gayong tungkulin. Magandang basahin ang mga tesis at disertasyon ng ating mga iskolar kahit sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, at surrin kung paanong nagiging sangkalan ng katakot-takot na talababâ ay mahahabàng listáhan ng sanggunian upang patunayan ang pangalawahin o kahit pangatluhing uri ng kaisipang nilalamán ng pag-aaral. Magandang pakinggang magpanayam ang ating mga propesor at kritiko upang ipaliwanag ang kanilang interpretasyon sa teorya o pamamaraan ng kanilang paborito’t hinahangaang teoretisyan sa Kanluran.

More than anything, my point of divergence with the Taglish mindset is its lack of ability to discover its own authentic knowledge. Because of its dependence on knowledge from the English language they become expert interpreters and are happy with that role. It would be nice to read the theses and dissertations of our scholars even at the University of the Philippines (UP) to see how the lengthy footnotes and references prove a secondary or even tertiary point in the study. It is nice to listen to our professors and critics explaining their take on their favorite theorist from the West.

Dito ko nais usigin ang mga mga lingguwistaserong taga-UP na hayagang propeta ng Taglish bílang isang kailangang sangkap ng wikang pambansa. Hindi kayâ pinaglalaruan lámang nila ang wikang Filipino at ang mga alagad ng wika dahil sa taglay nilang doktorado sa lingguwistika? Hindi kayâ ikinikubli lámang nila sa kanilang pagsusulong ng Taglish ang totoong kamangmangan nila sa wikang Tagalog na batayan ng Filipino? Kayâ palá malimit na nása Ingles ang kanilang sulatín? At kayâ palá kailangang ipakilála nila ang maestrong banyaga sa bawat munting kurong ipalathala nila hinggil sa ating wika?

This is where I hope to chide our UP linguists who are prophesy Taglish as being a necessary ingredient of the national language. Couldn’t they just be toying with the Filipino language and the guardians of language because of their PhDs in Linguistics? Aren’t they merely hiding their own lack of knowledge in Tagalog which is the basis of Filipino language? Maybe that’s why their writings are often in English. And maybe that’s why they need to show off the foreign visiting teacher in every article they publish about our language.

Sa maikling salita, may haka ako na isang hadlang sa pagtuklas ng orihinal at totoong karunungan ang kamulatang Taglish. Isa rin itong makinasyon upang mapigil ang paglinang natin sa wikang Filipino bílang wika ng karunungang Filipino. Sana, marumi lang ang isip ko.

In short, I am compelled to believe that the Taglish mindset is a barrier to discovering original and true knowledge as a people. It is also a machination preventing us from forging our own Filipino language as a one of authentic Philippine knowledge. Indeed I hope for our sakes that my mind merely plays tricks on me.

Virgilio Almario is Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy at the University of the Philippines. This article is tranlated and reprinted with his permission.

Why Filipinos "wanna" use "wanna"

The contraction of “want to” to “wanna” is considered grammatical (in informal speech) except when a trace of an extracted wh-word between “want” and “to” occurs. Since knowledge of this syntactic rule is shown to be present in very young children (Crain & Thornton, 1998) and imperfect in non-native English speakers (Bley-Vroman & Kweon, 2002), “wanna” contractions are attributed to the Universal Grammar (UG).

If we suppose that most speakers of Philippine English are bilingual and that some (if not most) do not recognize the ungrammaticality of the phrase, “Who do you wanna drive the car?” How would we explain the lack of knowledge of a universal such as “wanna” in native speakers of Philippine English?

Pullum (1997) suggests that “wanna” is not merely a matter of syntax but of phonology as well. He says this is particularly true (irrespective of syntactic constraints) with “liberal dialects that permit the phonological reduction of “want to” into “wanna” within an intonational phrase.”

I believe that Philippine English may indeed be a case of Pullum’s “liberal dialects” (I am using “dialects” liberally here.) Moreover, this may tell us Philippine English speakers are not, in a sense, native. Indeed, Gonzales (2004) notes that while 78.7% of Filipinos speak Philippine English “for the most part these speakers are second language speakers.”

Personally, I believe social factors are also at play. “Wanna” may be viewed as a sort of prestige variant in the Philippines, since saying, “wanna” might make one sound more “American” or more educated. Needless to say, this begs further research, let alone proving that there is a lack of “wanna” knowledge among Philippine English speakers to begin with.

References

Bley-Vroman, R., & Kweon S. (2002). Acquisition of the constraints on wanna

contraction by advanced second language learners: Universal Grammar and imperfect knowledge. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from http://www.sls.hawaii.edu/bley-vroman/wanna.pdf

Crain, S., & Thornton, R., (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments in the acquisition of syntax and semantics. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

Gonzales, A., (2004). The social dimension of Philippine English. World Englishes,

23(1), 7-16.

Pullum, G. (1997). The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction. Language, 73(1)

79-102.